Current usage of explainer animations in trials: a survey of the UKCRC registered clinical trial units in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Explainer animations are a means to communicate aspects of clinical trials to participants in a more engaging and accessible way. Delivered well these have the potential to enhance recruitment and retention. The range of media technology used to deliver this material is expanding rapidly but is highly fragmented. Usage of explainer animations across the UK is unknown, the aim of this research was to determine current usage across the 52 registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) to understand the current landscape and any barriers that could be preventing wider uptake of this functionality. METHODS: A survey link was emailed to all UKCRC CTU Directors and Trial Management Leads to ascertain current usage of explainer animations within their CTU. The survey ran between 01 February 2023 and 07 March 2023. RESULTS: Responses were received from 35 CTUs-representing a response rate of 67%. 24 CTUs (69%) reported that they had created/used at least one explainer animation within their unit, although the usage, cost, length and production activities varied among the units. CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed that a high proportion of the UKCRC CTUs have used explainer animations to provide information to participants about clinical studies. For those not using the technology yet, the most common reasons cited were a lack of expertise, lack of resources and costs to produce them. One of the desired outcomes of this project is the creation of a free-to-use library of animations to encourage wider uptake and avoid duplication.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Adaptive multi-interventional trial platform to improve patient care for fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: Fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (fILDs) are a heterogeneous group of lung diseases associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite a large increase in the number of clinical trials in the last 10 years, current regulatory-approved management approaches are limited to two therapies that prevent the progression of fibrosis. The drug development pipeline is long and there is an urgent need to accelerate this process. This manuscript introduces the concept and design of an innovative research approach to drug development in fILD: a global Randomised Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform in fILD (REMAP-ILD). METHODS: Description of the REMAP-ILD concept and design: the specific terminology, design characteristics (multifactorial, adaptive features, statistical approach), target population, interventions, outcomes, mission and values, and organisational structure. RESULTS: The target population will be adult patients with fILD, and the primary outcome will be a disease progression model incorporating forced vital capacity and mortality over 12 months. Responsive adaptive randomisation, prespecified thresholds for success and futility will be used to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions. REMAP-ILD embraces the core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion for patients and researchers, and prioritises an open-science approach to data sharing and dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: By using an innovative and efficient adaptive multi-interventional trial platform design, we aim to accelerate and improve care for patients with fILD. Through worldwide collaboration, novel analytical methodology and pragmatic trial delivery, REMAP-ILD aims to overcome major limitations associated with conventional randomised controlled trial approaches to rapidly improve the care of people living with fILD.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Use of oxygen-loaded nanobubbles to improve tissue oxygenation: Bone-relevant mechanisms of action and effects on osteoclast differentiation.

Gas-loaded nanobubbles have potential as a method of oxygen delivery to increase tumour oxygenation and therapeutically alleviate tumour hypoxia. However, the mechanism(s) whereby oxygen-loaded nanobubbles increase tumour oxygenation are unknown; with their calculated oxygen-carrying capacity being insufficient to explain this effect. Intra-tumoural hypoxia is a prime therapeutic target, at least partly due to hypoxia-dependent stimulation of the formation and function of bone-resorbing osteoclasts which establish metastatic cells in bone. This study aims to investigate potential mechanism(s) of oxygen delivery and in particular the possible use of oxygen-loaded nanobubbles in preventing bone metastasis via effects on osteoclasts. Lecithin-based nanobubbles preferentially interacted with phagocytic cells (monocytes, osteoclasts) via a combination of lipid transfer, clathrin-dependent endocytosis and phagocytosis. This interaction caused general suppression of osteoclast differentiation via inhibition of cell fusion. Additionally, repeat exposure to oxygen-loaded nanobubbles inhibited osteoclast formation to a greater extent than nitrogen-loaded nanobubbles. This gas-dependent effect was driven by differential effects on the fusion of mononuclear precursor cells to form pre-osteoclasts, partly due to elevated potentiation of RANKL-induced ROS by nitrogen-loaded nanobubbles. Our findings suggest that oxygen-loaded nanobubbles could represent a promising therapeutic strategy for cancer therapy; reducing osteoclast formation and therefore bone metastasis via preferential interaction with monocytes/macrophages within the tumour and bone microenvironment, in addition to known effects of directly improving tumour oxygenation.

Single cell spatial analysis reveals inflammatory foci of immature neutrophil and CD8 T cells in COVID-19 lungs.

Single cell spatial interrogation of the immune-structural interactions in COVID -19 lungs is challenging, mainly because of the marked cellular infiltrate and architecturally distorted microstructure. To address this, we develop a suite of mathematical tools to search for statistically significant co-locations amongst immune and structural cells identified using 37-plex imaging mass cytometry. This unbiased method reveals a cellular map interleaved with an inflammatory network of immature neutrophils, cytotoxic CD8 T cells, megakaryocytes and monocytes co-located with regenerating alveolar progenitors and endothelium. Of note, a highly active cluster of immature neutrophils and CD8 T cells, is found spatially linked with alveolar progenitor cells, and temporally with the diffuse alveolar damage stage. These findings offer further insights into how immune cells interact in the lungs of severe COVID-19 disease. We provide our pipeline [Spatial Omics Oxford Pipeline (SpOOx)] and visual-analytical tool, Multi-Dimensional Viewer (MDV) software, as a resource for spatial analysis.

Adopting human factors in early phase and experimental medicine research: A nested pilot study observing controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2.

AIMS: The influence of human factors on safety in healthcare settings is well established, with targeted interventions reducing risk and enhancing team performance. In experimental and early phase clinical research participant safety is paramount and safeguarded by guidelines, protocolized care and staff training; however, the real-world interaction and implementation of these risk-mitigating measures has never been subjected to formal system-based assessment. METHODS: Independent structured observations, systematic review of study documents, and interviews and focus groups were used to collate data on three key tasks undertaken in a clinical research facility (CRF) during a SARS CoV-2 controlled human infection model (CHIM) study. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) was employed to analyse and categorize findings, and develop recommendations for safety interventions. RESULTS: High levels of team functioning and a clear focus on participant safety were evident throughout the study. Despite this, latent risks in both study-specific and CRF work systems were identified in all four SEIPS domains (people, environment, tasks and tools). Fourteen actionable recommendations were generated collaboratively. These included inter-organization and inter-study standardization, optimized checklists for safety critical tasks, and use of simulation for team training and exploration of work systems. CONCLUSIONS: This pioneering application of human factors techniques to analyse work systems during the conduct of research in a CRF revealed risks unidentified by routine review and appraisal, and despite international guideline adherence. SEIPS may aid categorization of system problems and the formulation of recommendations that reduce risk and mitigate potential harm applicable across a trials portfolio.

Optimising psoriatic arthritis therapy with immunological methods to increase standard evaluation: the protocol of an open-label multicentre, parallel-group, two-arm randomised controlled study evaluation precision medicine approach in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects around 150 000 people in the UK of whom around 50% require treatment with biologics. The most used biologics for PsA target tumour necrosis factor (TNF) or interleukin-17A (IL-17A). About 50% of patients respond to each, but it is not currently possible to predict response for individual patients, necessitating sequential treatment steps. A recent proof of concept study in PsA suggested that using peripheral immunophenotype to choose therapy could improve time to treatment response.This study will test the hypothesis, within an open-label parallel-group biomarker-stratified multicentre randomised controlled trial, which the baseline proportion of CD4+T cells with an activated type 17 immunophenotype (Th17 levels) predicts response to IL-17A or TNF inhibitors in PsA. Additional analyses will identify if the model can be refined by combining additional clinical and immunophenotypic factors. Statistical modelling will be used to predict the likely effectiveness of these approaches compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with PsA eligible to start their first biologic as part of standard care are recruited and baseline blood tests are taken for immunophenotyping. Participants are stratified equally by Th17 levels and randomised 1:1 to receive either TNF (adalimumab) or IL-17A (secukinumab) inhibitors. The primary analysis will establish the interaction between baseline immunophenotype and treatment on the primary outcome (achievement of minimal disease activity criteria at week 24). In secondary analysis, modelling will identify if this prediction model can be optimised further by incorporating clinical phenotypes and additional immunophenotyping techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the North West Preston Research Ethics Committee (ref 21/NW/0016). Dissemination will be via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications, aiming to impact on treatment guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17228602.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

In vivo human keyhole limpet hemocyanin challenge in early phase drug development: A systematic review.

Experimental exposure of healthy volunteers to the T-cell dependent neoantigen keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) permits the evaluation of immunomodulatory investigational medicinal product (IMP) pharmacology prior to the recruitment of patient populations. Despite widespread use, no standardized approach to the design and conduct of such studies has been agreed. The objective of this systematic review was to survey the published literature where KLH was used as a challenge agent, describing methodology, therapeutic targets addressed, and pharmacodynamic outcome measures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies using KLH challenge in humans between January 1, 1994, and April 1, 2022. We described key study features, including KLH formulation, dose, use of adjuvants, route of administration, co-administered IMPs, and end points. Of 2421 titles and abstracts screened, 46 met the inclusion criteria, including 14 (31%) early phase trials of IMP, of which 10 (71%) targeted T-cell co-stimulation. IMPs with diverse mechanisms demonstrated modulation of the humoral response to KLH, suggesting limited specificity of this end point. Two early phase IMP studies (14%) described the response to intradermal re-challenge (delayed type hypersensitivity). Challenge regimens for IMP assessment were often incompletely described, and exhibited marked heterogeneity, including primary KLH dose (25-fold variation: 100-2500 mcg), KLH formulation, and co-administration with adjuvants. Methodological heterogeneity and failure to exploit the access to tissue-level mechanism-relevant end points afforded by KLH challenge has impaired the translational utility of this paradigm to date. Future standardization, characterization, and methodological development is required to permit tailored, appropriately powered, mechanism-dependent study design to optimize drug development decisions.

Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it.

Successful drug discovery is like finding oases of safety and efficacy in chemical and biological deserts. Screens in disease models, and other decision tools used in drug research and development (R&D), point towards oases when they score therapeutic candidates in a way that correlates with clinical utility in humans. Otherwise, they probably lead in the wrong direction. This line of thought can be quantified by using decision theory, in which 'predictive validity' is the correlation coefficient between the output of a decision tool and clinical utility across therapeutic candidates. Analyses based on this approach reveal that the detectability of good candidates is extremely sensitive to predictive validity, because the deserts are big and oases small. Both history and decision theory suggest that predictive validity is under-managed in drug R&D, not least because it is so hard to measure before projects succeed or fail later in the process. This article explains the influence of predictive validity on R&D productivity and discusses methods to evaluate and improve it, with the aim of supporting the application of more effective decision tools and catalysing investment in their creation.

An observational, non-interventional study for the follow-up of patients with amyloidosis who received miridesap followed by dezamizumab in a phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Miridesap depletes circulating serum amyloid P (SAP) and dezamizumab (anti-SAP monoclonal antibody) targets SAP on amyloid deposits, triggering amyloid removal. In a phase 1, first-in-human study (FIHS), progressive amyloid removal was observed in some patients after ≤ 3 cycles of miridesap/dezamizumab. METHODS: This observational, non-interventional study in patients who received miridesap/dezamizumab during the FIHS (planned follow-up: 5 years) evaluated response to treatment based on routine assessments of disease status and key organ function. In a post hoc analysis, patients responding to treatment in the FIHS during follow-up were identified as responders and further categorized as sustained or declining responders. RESULTS: In the FIHS, 17/23 patients were treatment responders. Of these patients, seven (immunoglobulin light chain [AL], n = 6; serum amyloid A, n = 1) were considered sustained responders and ten (fibrinogen-a alpha chain [AFib], n = 5; AL, n = 4; apolipoprotein A-I, n = 1) were considered declining responders. We primarily present responder patient-level data for functional, cardiac, laboratory and imaging assessments conducted during the follow-up period, with non-responder data presented as supplementary. CONCLUSION: No further development of miridesap/dezamizumab is planned in amyloidosis. However, long-term follow-up of these patients may provide insight into whether active removal of amyloid deposits has an impact on disease progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01777243. Registered 28 January 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01777243 .

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Challenges and directions for the future.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 triggering the COVID-19 pandemic ranks as arguably the greatest medical emergency of the last century. COVID-19 has highlighted health disparities both within and between countries and will leave a lasting impact on global society. Nonetheless, substantial investment in life sciences over recent decades has facilitated a rapid scientific response with innovations in viral characterization, testing, and sequencing. Perhaps most remarkably, this permitted the development of highly effective vaccines, which are being distributed globally at unprecedented speed. In contrast, drug treatments for the established disease have delivered limited benefits so far. Innovative and rapid approaches in the design and execution of large-scale clinical trials and repurposing of existing drugs have saved many lives; however, many more remain at risk. In this review we describe challenges and unmet needs, discuss existing therapeutics, and address future opportunities. Consideration is given to factors that have hindered drug development in order to support planning for the next pandemic challenge and to allow rapid and cost-effective development of new therapeutics with equitable delivery.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation and safety assessment of treatment with antibodies to serum amyloid P component in patients with cardiac amyloidosis: an open-label Phase 2 study and an adjunctive immuno-PET imaging study.

BACKGROUND: In a Phase I study treatment with the serum amyloid P component (SAP) depleter miridesap followed by monoclonal antibody to SAP (dezamizumab) showed removal of amyloid from liver, spleen and kidney in patients with systemic amyloidosis. We report results from a Phase 2 study and concurrent immuno-positron emission tomography (PET) study assessing efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety and cardiac uptake (of dezamizumab) following the same intervention in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. METHODS: Both were uncontrolled open-label studies. After SAP depletion with miridesap, patients received ≤ 6 monthly doses of dezamizumab in the Phase 2 trial (n = 7), ≤ 2 doses of non-radiolabelled dezamizumab plus [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab (total mass dose of 80 mg at session 1 and 500 mg at session 2) in the immuno-PET study (n = 2). Primary endpoints of the Phase 2 study were changed from baseline to follow-up (at 8 weeks) in left ventricular mass (LVM) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and safety. Primary endpoint of the immuno-PET study was [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab cardiac uptake assessed via PET. RESULTS: Dezamizumab produced no appreciable or consistent reduction in LVM nor improvement in cardiac function in the Phase 2 study. In the immuno-PET study, measurable cardiac uptake of [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab, although seen in both patients, was moderate to low. Uptake was notably lower in the patient with higher LVM. Treatment-associated rash with cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis was observed in both studies. Abdominal large-vessel vasculitis after initial dezamizumab dosing (300 mg) occurred in the first patient with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis enrolled in the Phase 2 study. Symptom resolution was nearly complete within 24 h of intravenous methylprednisolone and dezamizumab discontinuation; abdominal computed tomography imaging showed vasculitis resolution by 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous observations of visceral amyloid reduction, there was no appreciable evidence of amyloid removal in patients with cardiac amyloidosis in this Phase 2 trial, potentially related to limited cardiac uptake of dezamizumab as demonstrated in the immuno-PET study. The benefit-risk assessment for dezamizumab in cardiac amyloidosis was considered unfavourable after the incidence of large-vessel vasculitis and development for this indication was terminated. Trial registration NCT03044353 (2 February 2017) and NCT03417830 (25 January 2018).

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 in children and adolescents: Clinical features and treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical manifestations and treatment outcomes in children and adolescents with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 are not well characterized. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 80 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 who commenced tumor surveillance at ≤18 years of age. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (70%) developed an endocrine tumor by age ≤18 years (median age = 14 years, range = 6-18 years). Primary hyperparathyroidism occurred in >80% of patients, with >70% undergoing parathyroidectomy, in which less-than-subtotal (<3-gland) resection resulted in decreased disease-free outcomes versus subtotal (3-3.5-gland) or total (4-gland) parathyroidectomy (median 27 months versus not reached; P = .005). Pancreaticoduodenal neuroendocrine tumors developed in ∼35% of patients, of whom >70% had nonfunctioning tumors, >35% had insulinomas, and <5% had gastrinomas, with ∼15% having metastases and >55% undergoing surgery. Pituitary tumors developed in >30% of patients, and ∼35% were macroprolactinomas. Tumor occurrence in male patients and female patients was not significantly different. Genetic analyses revealed 38 germline MEN1 mutations, of which 3 were novel. CONCLUSION: Seventy percent of children aged ≤18 years with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 develop endocrine tumors, which include parathyroid tumors for which less-than-subtotal parathyroidectomy should be avoided; pancreaticoduodenal neuroendocrine tumors that may metastasize; and pituitary macroprolactinomas.

Namilumab or infliximab compared with standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment-time interactions were -0·09 (95% CI -0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (-0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. INTERPRETATION: Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation-as measured by CRP concentration-in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.